> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:46 +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > * Matus UHLAR - fantomas [2009-07-30 16:35]:
> > > On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
>
> > > > I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
> > > > reverse lookup is forged. But still with the fol
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
Received: from alside.com (localhost [220.231.127.15] (may be forged))
by alita.karotte.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with SMTP id n6UBn1BJ021997
for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:49:05 +0200
That nonsense should be worth a point:
header R
[sebast...@alita:~]$ host 220.231.127.15
15.127.231.220.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer localhost.
this is your dns error, it does not make sense
You are correct, but the problem is not in Sebastian's DNS - it is in
the rDNS of the IP that contacted his MTA.
Not quite the same thing, bu
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:41, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Benny Pedersen [2009-07-30 17:37]:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I doing somethin
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:46 +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> * Matus UHLAR - fantomas [2009-07-30 16:35]:
> > On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > > I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
> > > reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:41, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> * Benny Pedersen [2009-07-30 17:37]:
>>
>> On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
>> >> > the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
>> >> > localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 09:39 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Jeff Mincy wrote:
> > Processing locally generated email that contain spam URLs through
> > SpamAssassin is not a particularly good idea. If you have Bayes
> > enabled then you are training your Bayes that spam URLs and
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: Sebastian Wiesinger
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:48:09 +0200
* John Hardin [2009-07-30 17:39]:
>> Sendmail -> Procmail -> SA (spamc)
>
> Cool, that should be simple.
>
> Can you send:
>
> (1) the Received: headers from an email gen
From: Sebastian Wiesinger
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:48:09 +0200
* John Hardin [2009-07-30 17:39]:
>> Sendmail -> Procmail -> SA (spamc)
>
> Cool, that should be simple.
>
> Can you send:
>
> (1) the Received: headers from an email generated on that box, and
>
* John Hardin [2009-07-30 17:39]:
>> Sendmail -> Procmail -> SA (spamc)
>
> Cool, that should be simple.
>
> Can you send:
>
> (1) the Received: headers from an email generated on that box, and
>
> (2) the procmail stanza where you call SA?
I could create a procmail rule that excludes local mail
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
non working dns is not a spamassassin bug
How do you get "non-worki
* Benny Pedersen [2009-07-30 17:37]:
>
> On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> >> > the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
> >> > localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
>
> non working dns is not a spamassassin bug
[sebast...@al
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* John Hardin [2009-07-30 17:24]:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
So how can I whitelist mails which come from the server where my
SpamAssassin is running?
Tell your glue layer that messages originating on that server should n
On Thu, July 30, 2009 17:17, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
>> > the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 resolves to
>> > localhost. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
non working dns is not a spamassassin bug
>> a bug apparently.
> JFYI, I created a bugreport for this:
>
On Thu, July 30, 2009 16:46, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> * Matus UHLAR - fantomas [2009-07-30 16:35]:
>> On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
>> > I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
>> > reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
>> >
>> >
* John Hardin [2009-07-30 17:24]:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
>
>> So how can I whitelist mails which come from the server where my
>> SpamAssassin is running?
>
> Tell your glue layer that messages originating on that server should not
> be passed to SA at all.
>
> If yo
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
So how can I whitelist mails which come from the server where my
SpamAssassin is running?
Tell your glue layer that messages originating on that server should not
be passed to SA at all.
If you describe how SA is glued to your MTA we might be
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas [2009-07-30 16:35]:
> On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
> > reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
> >
> > whitelist_from_rcvd *...@alita.karotte.org localhost
> >
> >
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas [2009-07-30 16:35]:
> On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
> > reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
> >
> > whitelist_from_rcvd *...@alita.karotte.org localhost
> >
> >
On 30.07.09 14:03, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> I was under the impression that whitelist_from_rcvd checks if the
> reverse lookup is forged. But still with the following rule
>
> whitelist_from_rcvd *...@alita.karotte.org localhost
>
> the attached mail is whitelisted because 220.231.127.15 reso
20 matches
Mail list logo
